[aron]

Originally Posted by Covert

My brother STG, Do what you have to do brother. I do feel a little bothered with how the recent posts has gone with you and some other posters regarding Leeite accusations..

I never said StG was a Leeite, rather that TAS was Lee Lite, which I later changed to TAS being Nee Lite and WL as Nee Full Strength. But Leeite, no. Perhaps someone else did, but that would be uncalled-for, and I'd hopefully be just as willing to correct that as with TAS' remark that Paul had the greatest spiritual apprehension of the disciples.

When I saw that quote from TAS I objected - that's not only wrong but dangerously wrong. Jesus had clearly taught not to elevate anyone. You can read the gospels, there are a half-dozen clear instances of this teaching. Do you think Paul would brook this? Of course not! The title of TAS' essay was "An apostle's supreme ambition". So consider TAS' focus, here, on elevating Paul in the context of his essay: we were in a group (LC) where certain "spiritual giants" were elevated, and those who elevated the "giant" or "greatest" were by association also raised up. Why do you think WL titled the Nee biography "A Seer of the Divine Revelation"? Those who recognized and promoted greatness were then by association given some of that. Look at the cheerleaders of Lee - where they're ensconced now atop the heap. They got it. That was the way to the top. Even though TAS may have had peers, in contrast to WN and WL (and TC, DYL etc) his elevation of Paul to "greatest" is rank error.

As great as Paul's contribution to the gospel, the writing of the NT, the joining of the gentile world with the heretofore Jewish sect, to set him apart thus and create a teaching based on that was wrong on its face and should be called out, and strongly. When we see something that can lead people astray, and stumble the simple ones, we can either pretend not to see it or call it out. So I called it out.

Now, was I a little cold in my calling-out? Perhaps. OBW does a better job of being less inflammatory and making the same or similar points. But we all can do a better job of writing. I mean, StG implied that I was an alligator, which is similar to a serpent - he said, "Later, gator". But I bore this with much grace (that is humour, sorry).

Luke 2:13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Peace is a great blessing and is foundational for love to grow. If someone speaks contrary to the spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we're responsible to point it out. But a spirit of peace should never leave. If my comments lacked grace, and made peace to depart, I apologize.

Here's the end of Sparks' essay:

All this had been stated and presented in Paul's earlier letters; but it was a meaning which had to be progressively made real and true in spiritual experience. The meaning of Christ's death - Paul taught - was to be the inner history of the believer, and this would work out - progressively - in the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. So that, by being conformed to His death, he'd come to fuller knowledge of Him and of that Divine power. It is ever so.

The all-governing passion opens the way for the effectual, and effectuating power, by the essential basis, through the progressive principle of conformity to His death.

From "A Witness and A Testimony", September-October, 1969, Volume 47-5.

None of this seems of itself wrong, but the focus is apparently on the "spiritual experience" or "inner history" of the believer, whether Paul, or Sparks, or you or I. There's manifold danger in a focus on the experience of the believer, as previously outlined. Yet there's safety in focus on the experience of Jesus Christ. Luke 9:51 says, "As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem." There we see an expression of supreme ambition. Don't look at Paul, or WN, WL etc etc. (Paul is an excellent guide - but we fix on Jesus, as Jesus fixed on the Father's will, on his destiny, on the road to Jerusalem. Here, Paul must give way, just as Peter gave way, as John the Baptist gave way, as everyone gives way).

Here's Spurgeon in 1880:

“For the LORD God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.” Isaiah 1:7

These are, in prophecy, the words of the Messiah. This is the language of Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Deliverer, whom God hath sent into the world to be the one and only Savior. We know that this is the case because it is to Him, and to Him alone, that the verse preceding our text must refer, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”

This is the declaration of Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, and it is He who said of old in prophecy, and afterwards carried it out in actual life, “I set my face like a flint.” Luke seems to have had this passage in His mind when he wrote that, “When the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem.”

There is just the same meaning in the two passages, and one cannot help feeling that the words recorded by Isaiah were brought by the Holy Spirit to the memory of Luke when he penned that expression. The fact is, that our Master, even from eternity resolved to save His people and nothing could keep Him from the accomplishment of His purpose. From eternity He foresaw that they would fall from their first estate, and He entered into covenant engagements to redeem them. And from the pledge He gave of old, He never started back.